AIBU to hope 'Tommy Robinson' finally faces some consequences?

[Locutus2000]

Arrested ahead of the London march.

Key instigator of the riots the other month.

@1dayatatime
What I understand from "closing the border" is a significantly restricting the level of legal migration resulting in a large reduction but not a "stop".

They mean stop people coming in.

illegal migration by definition is illegal and cannot so easily be stopped however it can be discouraged.

Illegal immigrants have overstayed their visas. It's not illegal to claim asylum in the UK.

So let's say we significantly restrict legal migration. On the point you raised about a reduction in the number of foreign students then Universities will find the adjustment hard, but they will have to focus on providing quality and good value education to UK students as they previously did rather than relying on ( or even exploiting) cash cow foreign students to balance their budgets.

All the best with that.

Let's take skill shortages- there are always skill shortages and redundant skills in any economy that's how the labour market works. Right now there's a shortage of brick layers and AI engineers and a surplus of say law graduates. But in sectors of shortage then wages rise and vice versa and people retrain - this is all perfectly normal.

If wages rise in sectors which have a shortage, why aren't the wages of nurses through the roof? We have a nursing crisis and import nurses from abroad.

We're importing labour not training people up because that means investment and the government aren't investing.

Yes there would be disruption in the short term as employers realise then can no longer use immigration as a low cost quick fix instead of using higher salaries and training.

There wouldn't be anyone who could fill essential roles in the NHS or to take jobs in the hospitality sector. I agree that we need to pay higher salaries but the argument against that is that businesses would push up prices and move out of the UK.

But it will avoid the long term cost of providing medical support and state pensions to those migrants in later years who have legitimately earned their right to and are perfectly entitled to these benefits by working in the UK and paying taxes.

This doesn't make sense.

We have more than enough people in the UK to perform all these roles, it's just that either UK nationals don't want to do them for the salaries offered or employers don't want to increase salaries to the levels demanded by UK nationals.

We don't have enough people of working age because of our low birth rate.

What I am interested in is understanding and addressing the root cause of the support for him rather than just shouting "racist" because of a lack intellectual ability to do anything more analytical.

But he is a racist. Sometimes there is no need for deeper thought.

I think there is a need for deeper thought though - why is he resonating with so many?
Please don't tell me they are all far right, thick racists because I don't think they are.

Of course you are trying to justify Tommy Robinson. Immigration is not responsible for any of the things you are claiming to be concerned about.

You're labouring under so many misconceptions, not least assuming the opposition to this latest rabble rousing fascist is bourgeois lefty posturing. It was the working-class that beat the blackshirts, that fought the NF and we're doing it again now.

Unfortunately, it is because of racism and ignorance/stupidity.

To blame immigrants for the structural problems we've had since at least the industrial revolution, and more specifically since the 70s, can only be one or the other, or both.

We've seen the same opposition to every modern wave of immigration; the Irish fleeing the famine, Jews fleeing the Nazis, Ugandan Asians, the Windrush Generation etc.

That hostility has always been stoked by agitators on the far right, it's not a new phenomena. What's different is this time, it's being fuelled by a well funded international network of groups and fanned on social media.

If the people marching in London were actually minded to change things, they'd be marching with trade unions or volunteering in their communities or something constructive. But they're not.

@Locutus2000

"But he is a racist. Sometimes there is no need for deeper thought."

Look if after putting together a logical and clear argument on the flaws of large scale migration, how morally it is unacceptable for employers to use migrant workers as a means to avoid market priced salaries or avoid the cost of training and instead re engage those in society that are economically inactive - I then get labelled racist or more accurately a "muddy supporter" of Tommy Robinson simply because the poster was unable to construct a logical and clear counter argument. Then what hope is there ever for any rational debate or discussion on immigration if anytime the topic is brought up either calm and coherently or loud and emotively then it is simply dismissed as "racist".

@Harvestfestivalknickers

"I think there is a need for deeper thought though - why is he resonating with so many?
Please don't tell me they are all far right, thick racists because I don't think they are."

To be fair there are "thick people " on both sides of the debate, I also think the term "thick " is a bit unfair and would prefer to describe it as less educated and an inability to form a calm, coherent, logical and fact based opinion.

But whilst the left dismisses any concern on immigration, regardless of the manner in which it is expressed, as "far right racist thugs". And whilst the right cannot recognise that "a level" of immigration and emigration is inevitable. Then sadly the debate polarises which then results in street protests.

@1dayatatime

Your main argument seems to be based on Priti Patel's assertion that we have a huge pool of the "economically inactive" to fill gaps in the labour market. We simply don't.

That's true across all levels of the labour market from research professors to care workers.

But that's not what Tommy's army is marching about and it's disingenuous to suggest it is.

Our growing inequality, underfunded public services, crumbling health care system, teetering education system etc are the direct result of an ideologically driven economic decision to implement austerity politics.

Is Tommy out campaigning for more investment in education? Did his followers get out for anti-austerity campaigns against the 80% cut in Higher education, join in the opposition to the Health & Social Care bill, did they join a single grassroots group pushing back against the largest attack on ordinary people in their lifetimes? No, they tried to burn down hotels housing asylum seekers.

You keep complaining about 'the left' not understanding the frustration of Tommy's followers when the opposite is true. It's Tommy's rabble that can't see the root cause of their problems or that the people funding him couldn't care less about their material conditions.

@Hatfullofwillow

Sorry but I would prefer not engage with you when rather than enter into a rational counter argument on this, you simply shouted "racist" or in my case "a muddy justification" for Tommy Robinson.

These responses are sadly predictable where any concern on immigration, regardless of the manner in which it is expressed, is dismissed as "far right racist thugs" generally because they lack the intellectual capability of putting forward a logical counter argument in favour of immigration.

You were the one making the ludicrous claim that immigration was like the slave trade, and by extension anyone not condemning immigration was racist.

Your central premise, that we have enough people who are economically inactive to fill our labour & skills shortage is demonstrably false.

It's simply a lie to claim that any concerns about immigration are dismissed as racist, but when those "concerns" focus only on immigrants of colour, aren't actually related to immigration & in your case are based on a spurious argument set out by Priti Patel. Well, it's hard to think of a justification that's not either based on stupidity or racism.

I know you don't want to engage, you haven't. You've just made the same spurious claims repeatedly.

To be fair there are "thick people " on both sides of the debate, I also think the term "thick " is a bit unfair and would prefer to describe it as less educated and an inability to form a calm, coherent, logical and fact based opinion.

You can excuse the less educated when they educate themselves - by whatever ways there are availble to them. Which is commendable.

However, if you are less educated and choose to stay that way, then you are thick.

Whether people are 'thick' or not, everyone's vote has the same weight. What I'm concerned about is the discontent within a certain section of society. People can vote whether they choose to educate themselves or not. These people traditionally voted Labour but why do they feel they can't anymore?

@SerendipityJane

"You can excuse the less educated when they educate themselves - by whatever ways there are availble to them. Which is commendable.

However, if you are less educated and choose to stay that way, then you are thick."

That's a bit harsh- not everyone has the ability to put together well structured, eloquent and logical arguments as this thread has demonstrated.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't valid concerns on both sides of the debate.

SinnerBoy · Yesterday 18:44
**
I don't know, to be honest. And neither do I much care

So you know very little of the abhorrent person but you are still posting in his defence?
You’ve proved what a lot of people have said about the intelligence of his supporters.

That's a bit harsh- not everyone has the ability to put together well structured, eloquent and logical arguments as this thread has demonstrated.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't valid concerns on both sides of the debate.

Such as the debate over whether the world is flat ?

@SerendipityJane

"Such as the debate over whether the world is flat ?"

No such as the debate on the pros and cons on immigration.

It's the same thing.

On the one hand you will have reasoned views, related to facts and figures that are carefully compiled and put into context to inform the debate.

On the other you have Gazza26 whose mate told him brown people are hiding in pensioners coal sheds.

Ah, I hope Stephen enjoys prison

Imagine if he accidently ended up in a wing with lots of people who weren't white?
Fantasy only unfortunately as I wouldn't want the prision guards to get injured getting in the middle of that

I have a memory that white supremacists incarcerated in US jails were protected by the black population - especially those who had converted to Islam.

Yaxley-Lennons worst nightmare will be that Muslim inmates display their faith and not only not abuse him, but shield him from abuse and treat him with charity.

18 months😀 maybe he'll come out a convert. Time to refect.

Stranger things have happened.

He may even learn how to correctly say and spell his own name.

Got my wish, finally.

Not that it will bother his supporters one bit.

Or you have someone claiming to have legitimate concerns, including the lump of labour fallacy, or claiming immigrants are mostly low skilled (when the opposite is true vs the native population). Or that they're an economic drain, when young men especially (the ones they tend to focus on) are obviously the opposite. By definition these aren't legitimate concerns, because they're false.

You could possibly argue that immigration puts pressure on housing & services, but that would be alleviated with a wider distribution of immigrants and is a wider problem resulting from decades of policy decisions.

Then we're left with the cultural impact, which although certainly real and contentious, has the discussion driven & exaggerated largely by reactionary politicians, media owners & the far right.